Harper takes over 'energy projects' decisions

[TimG]

How does building piplines to ports for shipping oil to other countries make for more and less expensive energy for Canada? BC gets very little economic benefit from the proposed Enbridge pipeline but assumes most of the environmental risk.

I am in favour of the pipeline but I think this is a fair comment. Alberta needs to share the royalties from the oil sands with BC. I am sure that an acceptable formula could be worked out if the parties agree to the principal.

[jacee]

How does building piplines to ports for shipping oil to other countries make for more and less expensive energy for Canada? BC gets very little economic benefit from the proposed Enbridge pipeline but assumes most of the environmental risk.

Minister acknowledges Fisheries Act review may reduce red tape for Enbridge

OTTAWA — The federal government's planned overhaul of the Fisheries Act may reduce the regulatory burden facing companies like Calgary-based Enbridge Inc to get approval for major projects, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield acknowledged Tuesday.

But Ashfield rejected opposition allegations that the federal government's plan for a"more sensible and practical" Fisheries Act was a result of pressure from the energy and mining sectors.

"It certainly hasn't influenced me in any way shape or form. I have never sat down with(or) had any discussions with Enbridge," he said in an interview.

...

But Ashfield said there is broad support from farmers, municipalities and even some conservation groups for government's new plan that shifts regulatory enforcement focus away from general fish habitat toward specific fish and fish habitat that are of "vital" importance to recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries.

...

Donnelly said the changes will have a huge impact on major energy and mining processes, because it will be a lot tougher for enforcement officers to prove that a company is harming a specific fishery than it would be to prove damage to a fish habitat.

A total focus on the "productivity" of fisheries.

Ya that'll preserve the ecosystem.

And of course it has nothing to do with the pipeline.

Right.

Edited April 25, 2012 by jacee

[Wilber]

I am in favour of the pipeline but I think this is a fair comment. Alberta needs to share the royalties from the oil sands with BC. I am sure that an acceptable formula could be worked out if the parties agree to the principal.

Why not the oil companies, they stand to make the most out of this.

[TimG]

Why not the oil companies, they stand to make the most out of this.

The oil companies take whatever the market is willing to offer. Alberta collects a percentage of the market price in royalties - a percentage that is set to ensure that royalties do not kill the golden goose - so whatever share BC takes has to come out of the percentage that the Alberta government already collects (unless you want to argue that Alberta charges too little).

BC cannot simply impose an export tax on oil because it would likely violate any number of agreements on internal trade barriers or constitutional powers. An agreement one based on the principle of royalty sharing would likely avoid such issues. Such an agreement also only requires that the BC and Alberta governments agree.

Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

The oil companies take whatever the market is willing to offer. Alberta collects a percentage of the market price in royalties - a percentage that is set to ensure that royalties do not kill the golden goose - so whatever share BC takes has to come out of the percentage that the Alberta government already collects (unless you want to argue that Alberta charges too little).

BC cannot simply impose an export tax on oil because it would likely violate any number of agreements on internal trade barriers or constitutional powers. An agreement one based on the principle of royalty sharing would likely avoid such issues. Such an agreement also only requires that the BC and Alberta governments agree.

I would suggest that Alberta is not charging enough. Link

As you say, oil companies take whatever the market will offer and if BC decides not to offer, then too bad. No private company has the right to build something on your property without your permission or without compensating you at a rate you have agreed to.

[TimG]

I would suggest that Alberta is not charging enough.

Well - that is a separate argument.

As you say, oil companies take whatever the market will offer and if BC decides not to offer, then too bad.

Not an acceptable position. If you brother needs access to your land to get off his property you would have to be a complete and total jerk to refuse. What you can do is ask for reasonable compensation for the inconvenience. The debate about the pipeline is not whether BC should allow it or not. BC should allow it but the terms to compensate BC for the risk need to be negotiated. Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

The oil companies take whatever the market is willing to offer. Alberta collects a percentage of the market price in royalties - a percentage that is set to ensure that royalties do not kill the golden goose - so whatever share BC takes has to come out of the percentage that the Alberta government already collects (unless you want to argue that Alberta charges too little).

BC cannot simply impose an export tax on oil because it would likely violate any number of agreements on internal trade barriers or constitutional powers. An agreement one based on the principle of royalty sharing would likely avoid such issues. Such an agreement also only requires that the BC and Alberta governments agree.

I agree with wilber, and what you're saying makes no sense at all, Tim.

Are you seriously suggesting that the oil pipeline companies can build wherever they want to without BC's permission/approval/paying for a right of way?

Cos that's ridiculous. The people of BC will never let it go through.

[Wilber]

Well - that is a separate argument.

Not an acceptable position. If you brother needs access to your land to get off his property you would have to be a complete and total jerk to refuse. What you can do is ask for reasonable compensation for the inconvenience. The debate about the pipeline is not whether BC should allow it or not. BC should allow it but the terms to compensate BC for the risk need to be negotiated.

An oil company is a business not a brother and will be no more resposive to your needs than the law will require.

[TimG]

Are you seriously suggesting that the oil pipeline companies can build wherever they want to without BC's permission/approval/paying for a right of way?

You need to learn to read. My entire point is BC has a moral right to charge a reasonable fee for permission to build the pipeline. BC has no moral right to refuse to allow the pipeline at all unless you think screwing your neighbors is a morally correct thing to do.

The fact is the beneficiaries of this pipeline are the people of Alberta and Canada. If they can't get the pipeline built the oil companies will take their capital and go somewhere else. Their shareholders don't care in the long term but the jobs and royalties will go somewhere else as well.

Another factor which the 'screw your neighbor' crowd ignores: companies which make more profit can be pressed to improve their environmental performance. If oil sands companies are forced to sell their product below market then the government will have less leverage when it comes to cleaning up the mess left by the oil companies.

Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

An oil company is a business not a brother and will be no more resposive to your needs than the law will require.

Your premise is that this is 'for the oil companies' is false. It is for Alberta that needs to have access to markets in order to attract investment. No access means - no investment - no jobs and no royalties. So if BC blocks the pipeline BC is screwing its 'brother' Alberta. Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

You need to learn to read. My entire point is BC has a moral right to charge a reasonable fee for permission to build the pipeline. BC has no moral right to refuse to allow the pipeline at all unless you think screwing your neighbors is a morally correct thing to do.

The fact is the beneficiaries of this pipeline are the people of Alberta and Canada. If they can't get the pipeline built the oil companies will take their capital and go somewhere else. Their shareholders don't care in the long term but the jobs and royalties will go somewhere else as well.

Another factor which the 'screw your neighbor' crowd ignores: companies which make more profit can be pressed to improve their environmental performance. If oil sands companies are forced to sell their product below market then the government will have less leverage when it comes to cleaning up the mess left by the oil companies.

I would submit the "screw your neighbour" crowd are those who would force a province or other property owner to accept an environmental risk that it believes is unacceptable.

[Wilber]

Your premise is that this is 'for the oil companies' is false. It is for Alberta that needs to have access to markets in order to attract investment. No access means - no investment - no jobs and no royalties. So if BC blocks the pipeline BC is screwing its 'brother' Alberta.

This is not about screwing Alberta, it is about being subjected to unacceptable risks solely for others to profit.

[TimG]

to accept an environmental risk that it believes is unacceptable.

Sorry. Pipelines are everywhere. The technology is well understood. The risks are manageable given proper regulation and oversight. There is no rational reason to object to at least one pipeline (whether via Vancouver or Prince George). People who say that we can't do anything unless there is zero risk are living in a fantasy land. Using irrational fears to prevent your neighbor from accessing your property does mean you are screwing your neighbor.

[Wilber]

Sorry. Pipelines are everywhere. The technology is well understood. The risks are manageable given proper regulation and oversight. There is no rational reason to object to at least one pipeline (whether via Vancouver or Prince George). People who say that we can't do anything unless there is zero risk are living in a fantasy land. Using irrational fears to prevent your neighbor from accessing your property does mean you are screwing your neighbor.

Pipelines aren't the big issue here, it's the tankers. They present a much greater relative hazard than a pipeline. In addition to the Northern Gateway pipeline, Kinder Morgan wants to twin their pipeline to Burnaby, tripling its capacity. This would allow them to increase the number of tankers passing through Vancouver every month from the present maximum of ten, up to thirty.

Alberta is asking a hell of a lot. Foremost, BC has a moral obligation to protect its own environment. Aberta has no such obligation.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Wilber

[TimG]

Pipelines aren't the big issue here, it's the tankers.

Tankers already go out of Vancouver. So what if they are tripled? The incremental risk is minimal - especially if regulations are upgraded. You have a better case on the north coast which is why a 'good neighbor' compromise might be to allow the Vancouver pipeline but block the northern one. Blocking both is self centered BS that screws our neighbor. Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

Tankers already go out of Vancouver. So what if they are tripled? The incremental risk is minimal - especially if regulations are upgraded. You have a better case on the north coast which is why a 'good neighbor' compromise might be to allow the Vancouver pipeline but block the northern one. Blocking both is self centered BS that screws our neighbors.

That's a super tanker a day added to the traffic already coming to Puget Sound from Alaska. A major spill in Georgia Straight would be a disaster almost beyond comprehension in its effect on the BC economy, forget about the environment.

?

[cybercoma]

Tankers already go out of Vancouver. So what if they are tripled? The incremental risk is minimal

I love it. Forget the environmental assessment. Tripling the amount of tanker traffic will barely have an effect. I know this because some guy on the net proclaimed it.

[TimG]

That's a super tanker a day added to the traffic already coming to Puget Sound from Alaska.

Yet even more reason to allow the pipeline. Why let the Americans be the only one that profits when we have to live with the risk anyways?

The fact is we live with the risk of a major earthquake and that risk is much higher than the risk of a oil spill. That is another reason why people complaining about the incremental risk of a few more tankers is hard to take seriously. Nothing in life is risk free. Expecting it to be risk free is not rational.

Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

I love it. Forget the environmental assessment. Tripling the amount of tanker traffic will barely have an effect. I know this because some guy on the net proclaimed it.

There should be systems put in place to get the risk to as close to zero as possible. 3 times zero is still zero.

The people who are being irrational are the people saying that additional tanker traffic cannot be managed or that the additional load represents an unacceptable risk compared to the risk we already live with.

Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[Wilber]

Yet even more reason to allow the pipeline. Why let the Americans be the only one that profits when we have to live with the risk anyways?

The fact is we live with the risk of a major earthquake and that risk is much higher than the risk of a oil spill. That is another reason why people complaining about the incremental risk of a few more tankers is hard to take seriously. Nothing in life is risk free. Expecting it to be risk free is not rational.

When you come up with a way of controlling the risk of earthquakes, let me know. Until then I'll stick to the things I can control.

[TimG]

When you come up with a way of controlling the risk of earthquakes, let me know. Until then I'll stick to the things I can control.

That is my point. You choose to live in a earthquake prone area. You chose to accept that risk. Given that you choose to accept that risk why do you think you have any business telling Alberta that can't ship its oil through BC ports because of a small additional risk of an oil spill which CAN be managed with proper regulation? Edited April 25, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

There should be systems put in place to get the risk to as close to zero as possible. 3 times zero is still zero.

The people who are being irrational are the people saying that additional tanker traffic cannot be managed or that the additional load represents an unacceptable risk compared to the risk we already live with.

What about the argument that sending so much oil to China is irrational because of the military threat they pose to us?

I'm just trying to square the notion that in addition to preparing for the day they invade us we have to ship them all the resources they need to do so.

[TimG]

What about the argument that sending so much oil to China is irrational because of the military threat they pose to us?

So you would rather sell Canadian oil at a discount to the Americans? Oil is a fungible commodity. It does not make a difference where we ship it - we just need to get it to a market.

I'm just trying to square the notion that in addition to preparing for the day they invade us we have to ship them all the resources they need to do so.

Now you are being delusional.

[eyeball]

Now you are being delusional.

No, I'm being deluded.

Edited April 25, 2012 by eyeball

[jacee]

Tankers already go out of Vancouver. So what if they are tripled? The incremental risk is minimal - especially if regulations are upgraded. You have a better case on the north coast which is why a 'good neighbor' compromise might be to allow the Vancouver pipeline but block the northern one. Blocking both is self centered BS that screws our neighbor.

well you've sure got that self-centred screw-your-neighbour attitude down pat.

Is that really working for Alberta?

Has BC agreed to that?